Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
started the fire instead of trying to put the fire out. >> we tried to get change cpi, and harry reid took it off the table. and the president claims he wants change cpi, but is harry reid more powerful than barack obama? >> that's a good question. >> no, it's not. no, harry reid is not a more powerful guy. but i do agree in the end, if the president will stop demagoguing, and if he'll stop running a presidential campaign, a permanent campaign that david brooks is talking about, al, i think you're right. i think the president, at the end, may actually make some decisions that will upset his own base, change cpi, on hopefully -- hopefully he won't take paul krugman's position and say we'll worry about medicare in 2025 when it starts to melt down. hopefully he'll be a little more responsible than that. i think he will. >> yes. >> but the problem, i think, goes back to mika's point. in all of the attacking the president, he has a plan on the table. you can say is demagoguing. the revenues that he's putting on the table from the taxes add up. the republicans have just come back saying, we're n
, harry reid, and said this is the solution. >> all right. meanwhile, senator lindsay graham is suggesting one potential -- >> i'm sorry, could i interrupt? i had a munchkin in my mouth. >> no, you can't have those. you're supposed to have your greek yogurt. >> i'm trying to make a point with a visual aid. this is like defense spending. done. gone. >> before the day has even started, you've just -- give those to me. >> i'm not homer simpson. what do you make of what woodward said? >> the president's in charge. he's got to figure out a way to stop the sequester. i think the symbolism of the last couple weeks haven't been great. he's not really out there leading a new path towards figuring out how to avoid something he says is a bad idea and promised as a candidate wouldn't happen. >> okay. john, joe's mouth is full. what do you think? >> i'm hap think the sequester be a bad thing. >> everyone says that. who's going to take the blame? who should? >> if it ends up going into effect, i think they're all going to take a lot of blame and they should. it's fair enough to say, if bob's reporting i
was serious, he'd sit down with harry reid and begin to address our problems. >> you know, willie, it strikes me not only the white house but liberals for a decade now have said if republicans were serious about the deficit, they would cut defense spending and they would come forward with tax increases. well, it looks like, as mike was talking about yesterday in this new york article, republicans are going to come forward and let these defense cuts go through. so republicans will, over the past three months compromise in defense spending and compromise in tax increases. so i think it's fair at this point to say, mr. president, show us your hand, because this is what we've been hearing for a decade. taxes have gone up and now we're going to cut pretty significantly from the pentagon's budget. your move, mr. president. >> he wants revenues to go up again and john boehner's response is, we just did that. >> that's the thing. we always heard, you guys raise taxes, cut defense spending and then we will come back with a compromise on spending cuts. but, no, we raise taxes, we come forward with pent
republicans passed so many things that just never see the light of day. and harry reid's senate. but the way things used to work, you used to pass things in the house, and then the senate would pass things. and then when harold and i at least were in washington in the '90s, then you go to conference committee, and they battle it out. that doesn't happen if harry reid doesn't pass things in the senate. he is the president's pocket veto. >> the step you're missing in that is -- and kevin mccarthy's interview proves that denial is not simply a river in egypt -- there's no conference committee. >> can i -- hold on. hold on. >> that's a good one. that was so fancy. >> is not just a river in egypt. >> that's what he does now. >> that's something brad pitt would say in one of those chanel ads. >> let's call brad. >> standing against the wall wearing nothing. >> he's wearing the sweater. >> go like this. >> you can't get away with saying things like that on this show. >> i want to hear his vision. >> why? more "morning joe." >> i know you're way above the cliche. i'm sorry. >> stupid cliche. >> what
't attack the president. they attacked nancy pelosi and harry reid. they avoided talking about -- >> but here, they have to go one on one with the president because he's the one that they're fighting with. it is not really harry reid and nancy pelosi leading the charge. >> bill: the other thing they say, we can absorb this. it won't be so bad. $1.2 trillion, that's over ten years. yet the pentagon comes out yesterday with a -- not with a study, they reported that they've already told 800,000 civilian employees you're going to face a furlough if this kicks in. that means they take one day a week off. that's a 20% cut in their pay. again, i'm trying to get in the mindset of republicans who think it is a good idea to let this happen. >> well, even unless -- if you look at the defense spending that we would go back, this would roughly be what the defense department was spending in 2006-2007 when they're waging two wars. maybe the defense department could cut back. the pentagon has never been able to do a full audit. it is risky because the white house put out a memo. i'm sure you s
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
case to see if they can use the public pressure, west virginia and harry reid in nevada to do things they might not otherwise want to do. i'm extremely skeptical. people have tried this in the past. no doubt the obama folks have a better organization and social media gives you advantages you didn't have in the past but they're trying to do something i have not seen signs they are willing to do in a non-presidential election. >> i do think, michael steele, the republicans will see the president talk on guns tonight and see the victims of newtown. i think that's going to cut through. we've all had these moments and said the union addresses ab had these moments and maybe there won't be an assault weapon ban and maybe won't go after thes a 99 high capacity magazines. but republicans will have a hard time saying no to background checks and saying no to gun trafficking laws. if they do say no to these items that are 9010s, we used to go around the hill saying it's 8020, 80-20 negative. if it's 80-20, that train's coming an you get out of the way. this is 90-10. my question is will republic
the day he got in the senate, he was bored. harry reid said, you don't like it here, you're bored here. why don't you run for president? >> he was considerably more politic about how he spent his short time in the senate. >> talking about barack obama's pathway he wasn't worried about that, he wasn't worried about building bridges, right? >> no, but he found a way to get along with his fellow senators as did hillary clinton who came along having greater ambitions, but careful to go step by step and not to seem bigger for her britches than she wanted to seem. >> this is an odd way to last in washington. we'll see how he does. >> lindsey graham said you get respect in the senate if you can throw a punch and you have to show you can make a deal. ted cruz has thrown lots of punches and hasn't shown he can legislate or endure. this remains to be seen. >>> and at the white house to deliver remarks on billions of dollars on automatic budget cuts set to kick in next friday. according to administration officials, the president will challenge republicans to make a quote simple choice between pro
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)